In what ways do advertisers in magazines use sexual imagery toappeal to youth? One study classified each of 1509 full-page orlarger ads as "not sexual" or "sexual," according to the amount andstyle of the dress of the male or female model in the ad. The adswere also classified according to the target readership of themagazine. Here is the two-way table of counts.
|
| Magazine readership | |
| | |
Model dress | Women | Men | General interest | Total |
|
Not sexual | 353 | 510 | 247 | 1110 |
Sexual | 212 | 96 | 91 | 399 |
|
Total | 565 | 606 | 338 | 1509 |
|
(a) Summarize the data numerically and graphically. (Compute theconditional distribution of model dress for each audience. Roundyour answers to three decimal places.)
| | | |
Women, Men, General |
Notsexual | _____, _____, _____ | | |
Sexual | _____, _____, _____ | | |
|
(b) Perform the significance test that compares the model dress forthe three categories of magazine readership. Summarize the resultsof your test and give your conclusion. (Use ? = 0.01.Round your value for ?2to two decimal places,and round your P-value to four decimal places.)
Conclusion
Fail to reject the null hypothesis. There is significantevidence of an association between target audience and modeldress.
Reject the null hypothesis. There is not significant evidence ofan association between target audience and modeldress.
Fail to reject the null hypothesis. There is not significantevidence of an association between target audience and modeldress.
Reject the null hypothesis. There is significant evidence of anassociation between target audience and model dress.
(c) All of the ads were taken from the March, July, and Novemberissues of six magazines in one year. Discuss this fact from theviewpoint of the validity of the significance test and theinterpretation of the results.
This is not an SRS. This gives us reason to believe ourconclusions might be suspect.
This is not an SRS. This gives us no reason to believe ourconclusions are suspect.
This is an SRS. This gives us reason to believe our conclusionsmight be suspect.This is an SRS.
This gives us no reason to believe our conclusions aresuspect.